Sunday, August 17, 2014

Blogging Frequency



We're already more than half way through August and I've only made two posts so far. Yes they're pretty long ones, but still. This time last year I had made already 13 posts in August, and in July last year I made 45 posts - the highest number of posts in any month. I was blogging every day last summer, sometimes several times a day. This summer, not so much. I have a new job that is taking more of my free time away. That's one major reason I'm not blogging as frequently. On top of that I just got back from a one-and-a-half week vacation, and I didn't have any time then to blog much as well. Last summer I didn't go on vacation.

I have been commenting a lot and debating with theists on many blogs and that's been taking up a substantial amount of my writing time, preventing me from writing new material. I've been going out on the weekends to enjoy the outdoors also, and that of course prevents me from writing. But also, I've just been dry on topics lately. I haven't had much inspiration for interesting topics to write about. I plan on writing more counter apologetics in the future and hopefully other interesting topics related to atheism and urban living, but they're mostly just fuzzy ideas right now. My viewership has declined significantly as I've started to write less. It's down to about half of what it was last summer.

So, I'm certainly not going to stop blogging anytime soon. I hope to post more frequently in the future, at least 1-2 posts per week. I don't think I can blog everyday as I did last summer, unless they're really short blogs or links. I try to have original material here, instead of reblogging or linking to other content, but I might ease that up a bit in the name of frequency. Cheers to a good summer!


Saturday, August 16, 2014

A Few Notes On Spirituality & "Beloved"



I just got back earlier this week from a week-and-a-half long vacation in Oregon. I had attended a music/art/spiritual festival called Beloved and I also got to see my mother, sister and my eight year old nephew. At Beloved, I got to spend several days camping with thousands of free-spirited hippies, many of whom take their spiritual beliefs very seriously. And I have to say it was a very enlightening experience. I spend my time around mostly secular people who rarely, if ever, show any strong outward signs of religiosity - even those who believe in god. So after speaking and spending time with several thousand people who'd probably self identify as "spiritual," I have gained a new perspective.


I wasn't there to preach to anybody. In fact I kept my atheism in the closet the whole time. I was there to learn. I was there to absorb. I was there to warmly educate myself on a slice of humanity that I rarely encounter. "Beloveds" as the attendees are called, are free-spirited hippie types, who mostly feel very passionately about the earth, the environment, humanity and humankind's connection to the spirit world.

On the first night, around the "sacred fire" where at night I would sit to warm up from the cold mountain air, one of the hosts gave a speech about fire. He spoke of the ways in which fire is misused, such as in war, and spoke of the ways it should be properly used. Then we were all instructed to give thanks to all four directions, north, south, east, west. I played along and participated, hoping that there would be a strong emotional response in me, but there wasn't. I seem to have an adverse reaction for group rituals. To me, anything that appears religious or cult like, such as group rituals, makes me uncomfortable. On the second day, we did another group prayer. We were asked to think about those suffering in the world and I did get an emotional response. It wasn't the group prayer that I think did it, it was my empathy for those suffering. I've had emotional moments like that all by myself and so I know the way my body and brain react. Group prayer or singing still isn't my thing. Even Sunday Assembly didn't quite rub me the right way. I was amazed however at some of the people attending who really seemed deeply and sincerely connected to whatever spirits they believed in.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Naturalism: Not Even Wrong?


When you say that something is "not even wrong" it usually means that it's so incoherent that it's not even worth considering right. It's supposed to be so badly constructed that saying it's merely wrong would be a compliment. I was recently linked to a blog post that argues that the worldview of naturalism is so ill-defined that it's not even wrong. And since I am a naturalist, (and a staunch one at that) my curiosity couldn't resist investigating as to whether there was something to this claim.

The blog post, called Not even wrong: The many problems with Naturalism, written by Randal Rauser, who is a Canadian Christian theologian and apologist, criticizes an argument from Jeffrey Jay Lowder called the The Evidential Argument from the History of Science. Lowder, (who by the way writes an excellent counter-apologetic blog called the Secular Outpost) is accused of defining naturalism in such away that makes it open to the existence of an immaterial soul. This is suppose to highlight the problem naturalists face. Naturalism is so ill-defined, according to some of its critics like Rauser, that there is little point in considering it seriously. After all, it could be argued that if immaterial souls are compatible with a definition of naturalism, then why not immaterial gods?

The definition of naturalism

In my mini-biography, Natural Born Skeptic: My Atheist Journey, I defined naturalism as “a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences” or “the thesis that nothing besides the natural world, or nature, exists.” But this definition doesn't define what "natural" is and isn't, and many think this therefore begs the question. So what is the difference between something natural and something supernatural? Suppose for example that we lived in a world where ghosts existed and everyone had empirical evidence that they existed since the beginning of recorded history. Would ghosts be natural or supernatural in such a world? Trying to define what is natural can be difficult if you don't know what nature is. To compound the problem, consider that if someone who lived 2000 years ago was exposed to modern technology, they would most likely think it was supernatural. Indeed, Arthur C. Clarke's third law states that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If such a statement is true, then how could we ever know what is and is not natural given future advancements in technology due to a greater understanding of the laws of physics?

Thursday, July 31, 2014

A Beginner's Guide to the Israeli Palestinian Conflict




Saturday, July 19, 2014

Lawrence Krauss On Quantum Mechanics And Determinism


"Quantum mechanics is not indeterministic as many people think, it's a completely deterministic theory. It's second order differential equations with boundary conditions and they're completely determined. Once you give the initial conditions the wave function of a particle after some time is completely determined, so there's no indeterminacy. Now what happens when you measure the properties of that particle based on its wave function that's probabilistic." 



Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Reality of Past, Present, and Future—Video






Saturday, July 12, 2014

Yet Another Catch-22 On God And Free Will


If god's free will is limited by his nature, then he has no free will. And if you say he has free will but always wills to do good, then we too could have been created the same way and there'd be no evil and we'd have free will. 

You simply cannot argue that human moral evil exists because god gave us free will and we therefore can chose evil actions. If god has free will and can only chose good actions, then there's no logical reason why we couldn't as well. You'd be admitting that "free will" is compatible with "always choosing to do good" and would be undermining the free will defense.


Republicans Have The Same Misconceptions Of Reagan As They Do Jesus


What's wrong with republicans?

Today's republican party are politically the biggest and most stubborn babies perhaps in the history of the US; certainly since World War II. They're a bunch of anti-birth control, anti-middle class, anti-secularist, anti-evolution, anti-science, climate change denialists who have been completely bought and sold by their corporate fundraisers. They hate the President with a passion and are willing to disrupt government and jeopardize the welfare of the people just to prevent him from getting any serious bills passed because they don't want him to leave the White House with a positive legacy. Any time you hear a republican sound off on science, sexuality or economics you can almost guarantee that you're going to be hearing something profoundly idiotic.

Republicans have two dead heroes that they love to put up on a pedestal and idolize: Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. And what makes these two icons of the republican part so odd, is that if you really look at what each of them did and said, it is antithetical to their primary agenda. While the hypocrisy is astounding, it's what you'd expect from an anti-intellectual party.

Let's look at former President Ronald Reagan, the political icon of the republican party, who all party members must speak about with the utmost admiration. Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times when he was in office, he gave blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, he traded arms with terrorists, he nearly tripled the federal deficit, and he increased the size of government. Reagan wouldn't even be able to win a primary in today's republican party because he'd be too far to the left. And yet, republicans have this image of Reagan as the ideal president - a model for every future republican with presidential aspirations. But his record clearly deviates from the modern script the party has devised today. Reagan was willing to compromise, he was sometimes willing to do the right thing and get government moving by finding a middle ground between his party's ideology and the left's. Compromise has become a dirty word today in the republican party and as a result we've got a congress that is the least productive in history.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Does Acupuncture Work?


The prevailing view among skeptics is that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. It's said to be based on unsubstantiated spiritual claims and should be considered in the same vein as homeopathy, faith healing and astrology. There have been some conflicting reports over the effects of acupuncture within scientific studies. One BBC documentary made a few years ago claimed that there was scientific evidence that acupuncture had an effect on the brain's chemistry. However, there are many sites claiming that acupuncture is nothing more than a "theatrical placebo."

I'm not convinced either way.

While I don't believe in the claim that we all have a "Qi" or energy field that acupuncture taps into, there is no reason for me to doubt that there could be certain pinpoints on the body that when stimulated can ease pain and certain ailments. The reason why I'm getting acupuncture is to help quite smoking. Since I was in high school I've been an on-again and off-again smoker. I initially started smoking because all the "cool" kids did it, and it soon became a staple of my party lifestyle. I managed to quit for a period of 2 years when I was in college but then it came back with a vengeance and that's where I am today, trying to quit yet again. At the height of my addiction I was smoking nearly a pack a day. And at $14 per pack here in New York that's a very expensive addiction.

I've gotten down to smoking a few cigarettes a day but I can often smoke a lot more if I'm drinking. The worst thing about trying to quit smoking is that the stubborn desire keeps coming back. It's such a psychological addition that it gets to the point where just thinking about having a cigarette makes me happy and puts me in a good mood, and that's what makes it so dangerous. I'm hoping acupuncture can alleviate me of this condition.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

5 Things Muslims Will Say When They're Losing A Debate With You


I love debating theists, especially Muslims, because you know they've got really bad arguments. I just recently had a Twitter "debate" with a Muslim and here are five things to recognize that are clear signs the Muslim is losing the debate you're having online.

1. They begin accusing every criticism of Islam as "racist" even though Islam is not a race. #logic

2. They immediately assume you're a white, redneck, Fox News watching, Bush-loving republican.

3. They immediately assume that you don't know anything about Islam and think you're judging the religion based on the actions of extremists.

4. They immediately assume that you hate Islam, but are fine with all other religions.

5. They ignore or deny the meaning of verses from the Qur'an that clearly show violations of basic human rights and will always claim that you've got the "wrong" translation.

If you get into an online debate with a Muslim you can be sure that you will see many of these paths taken. Your ignorance to Islam is the Muslim's greatest weapon. So I advise you to be as knowledgeable as you can about the history and theology of Islam if you're a serious debater like me.


Saturday, June 28, 2014

“You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.”





That there is only the natural world, which we are a part of, seems to me truth given the evidence. Thus the naturalist like myself realizes that man and nature are the same thing. Mankind is nature becoming conscious of itself. The late Anglo-American philosopher Alan Watts knew this quite well. In recent years he's become one of my favorite philosophers, and although he may not have technically been a naturalist in the strictest sense, his Zen inspired wisdom and metaphysics more often than not fall perfectly in line with the naturalism espoused by many atheists.

There is no doubt that naturalism can seem a lot more appealing when cloaked in the beautiful poetic language of philosophy and analogy. And Watts was incredibly good at doing this. In the Eastern traditions, the universe is not a creation, it's more like an organism. It grows. And as it grows, it peoples, in the same way that an apple tree apples. Thus, human beings are not born into the universe, they're born out of it. Watts thought that existence was fundamentally musical in nature. And so just as music doesn't have a destination, he argued the universe is not heading towards a particular goal. It is the process of the music unfolding over time that is why we enjoy it, just like when we dance we don't aim at a particular spot on the dance floor. The point is not to finish as fast as you can. The enjoyment comes from the dancing itself. Western philosophy however, which is so heavily influenced by Christianity and Judaism, sees the world and man as two separate creations, each created with a teleology in mind, and this Watts observes, is fundamentally at odds with the Eastern traditions and naturalism.

From some perspectives Zen and naturalism go hand in hand. Perhaps naturalism allows us the best explanation why we at times feel one with nature. In my mind, one can easily be a naturalist and a practitioner of Zen Buddhism. Now I'm not at all advocating Zen, or claiming myself as one of its followers. I'm just noticing that there is this tendency among too many atheists to reject all of what religion or spirituality has to offer because it is associated with metaphysics which the atheist rejects. I too reject the metaphysical claims of almost all religions, but that does not mean that here and there one cannot find bits of wisdom and insight that offer a far richer view of the natural world than through the lens of a purely scientific epistemology. Life is too colorful and our minds are too philosophical to restrict one's way of thinking in such rigid scientism. Philosophies like the kind held by Alan Watts can offer the naturalist who has jettisoned all forms of religion and spirituality with an enhanced understanding of their place in the universe. And so I leave you with his words:

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Exploring The Implications Of Determinism


It took me about 2 years, but I eventually made my way from being a naive believer in free will to a determinist. The road was paved with many bumps along the way and I found myself desperately clinging to the last thread of free will before I finally and inevitably had to let go. Like most people, it is hard to come to grips with the idea that there is no free will. We have this intuitive sense that our thoughts and actions are of our own volition. And a few years ago, if you were to have asked me whether or not I thought I had free will I would have cited that subjective intuition as my primary evidence. Perhaps I also would have thrown up the apparent indeterminacy of quantum mechanics as some scientific scientific evidence for free will. But all in all, I really didn't know what I was talking about.

What lead me to determinism was a greater understanding of quantum mechanics, which is deterministic, coupled with the data from neuroscience that our brain states occur before and determine our conscious mental states. Furthermore, when the very concept of free will is critically examined it doesn't really make sense. How can my mind have free will and disrupt the atoms in my body without a physical trace? How can my mind "choose" to have certain thoughts over others? My "free will" would have to spontaneously arise with no prior causal antecedents and without any explanation, because if there is an explanation, then it's determined. It also seems that if one must retain the belief in free will, then they must accept some kind of substance dualism. Free will must therefore be believed on faith - there is no evidence that we have it.

These questions and more make free will to me seem like something incoherent and unexplainable. So given that determinism is better supported by the evidence, it is not immune from from its own tough questions. If we all are determined beings, then how can we be held morally and legally accountable for our actions? How can anyone take credit for the good they do? And why do we feel so strongly as if we have free will?

Sometimes when I am in the midst of the throngs of commuters on my way to work I reflect with amazement on the idea that they are all determined - every single one of them, and that this drama was to be played out since the very first nanosecond of the big bang. It is mind boggling to think of the world in such a way. I also struggle to cope with the idea that all suffering was also determined. The holocaust, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, every war and disaster, all the suffering endured by every sentient being - it was all determined to happen and could not have been avoided. And I think to myself, why does the universe have to be so cruel? Why couldn't it have been a place with a little less suffering? But of course the answer is that the universe just is; one shouldn't expect it to be one way or the other when it comes to the suffering of sentient life.

Friday, June 13, 2014

A Surprising 5% Of Saudi Arabians Claim Atheism


One of the last places on earth you'd expect to see a reasonably sized atheist population is in Saudi Arabia. But many reports have surfaced recently that as many as 5 percent of Saudi Arabians are "convinced atheists."

Amazingly, the country just passed laws declaring atheists as terrorists, so don't expect any reason rallies there anytime soon. But this surprising insight is indicative that atheism has potential to grow in the Islamic world. I actually know one Saudi Arabian man who came to some of the local atheist Meetups here in New York and he told me how brainwashed most of the population in his country is. "It's madness" I remember him telling me over and over again describing the level of religiosity in his country.

The question I have is why are so many Saudi Arabians rejecting Islam and god. Is it because they are rebelling against the government run fundamentalism in their country? Is it because they've been convinced, as I have, that there is no good evidence for the existence of god and plenty of good evidence against it? Unfortunately, we don't have any statistical data as to why the atheists in Saudi Arabia became atheists, but many are blaming the government's hard line fundamentalist approach that imposes sharia law to a degree unmatched even in many other parts of the Islamic world.


I think it is certainly true that religious fundamentalism can spur its antithesis, which can be atheism, but this can make atheism look like it isn't an intellectual position, which it is. This characterization tries to make atheism look like it's nothing more than just an emotional reaction to extremism. I take issue with this. Militant atheism is often a reaction to religious extremism, but many here in the West arrive at atheism for intellectual reasons. To many atheists, religion just doesn't make sense when thoroughly examined, and the reasons why they believed in the first place was often due simply to the fact that they were raised in that religion, and nothing else. I'm sure this is true of many atheist Saudis.

So I can only speculate why so many Saudis are turning their backs on Islam and towards atheism, but they can be assured that there are very good reasons to do so.


Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The Story Of 1543: Why Science Is Better Than Religion


In 1543 two books were written that would later go on to have a significant impact on world history. One was by a Christian motivated by science, the other was by a Christian motivated by religious fanaticism.

Nicolaus Copernicus published his most famous work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) on his death bed, in which he argued that the Sun, and not the Earth, was the center of our solar system, kicking off what many believe to be the birth of the modern scientific revolution. That same year, Martin Luther, the Protestant reformer wrote one of his best known works, On the Jews and Their Lies, in which he argued, among other things, that European Jews were wicked, shouldn't be allowed to own homes, practice their religion, and should be forced into servitude.

Two very different books motivated by very different things. One helped kick off the modern scientific revolution, which enabled Galileo, Newton and eventually Einstein to lay the foundations of our understanding of the universe. The other helped kick off centuries of anti-semitism based on religious obsession and piety, that culminated in the Holocaust. These two works could not have been more different and had had the impact they did on society. One is a prime example of the benefits of what can happen when you devote yourself to science and the use of evidence and reason to understand the world around you, and the other is a prime example of how religious fanaticism and superstition poisons the mind.

1543 stands as a stark reminder of what we in the freethinking community should strive for and what we should be motivated to destroy. We need to emphasize a science based education process and understanding of the world around us that promotes thinking with reason and evidence with a healthy dose of skepticism, and we need to work against living by superstition, assumptions, and dogmatic belief in religious claims. Now interestingly, both Copernicus and Luther were Christians, (you pretty much had to be a Christian in 1543 Europe) but one championed using observation and evidence as his way of coming to his understanding of the world, and the other preferring obedience to an ancient book of superstition (Luther was extremely critical of Copernicus' heliocentricism). Many modern day Protestants are unaware that their founder was a raging anti-semitist in is latter years and set the foundation for the persecution of Jews for centuries afterward. They'd much rather blindly blame the Nazis and the holocaust on evolution, which is bullshit.

Let 1543 be a reminder to us all in the freethinking community.


Sunday, June 8, 2014

The Civil War In the Mind Of Liberals


I usually don't have many nice things to say about Dinesh D'souza, the conservative writer and Christian apologist, known to many atheists as the frequent interlocutor to Christopher Hitchens, but he did make a good point on Real Time with Bill Maher the other week.

They were talking about the attitude liberals have towards Muslims in the West and Dinesh commented that there is a civil war going on in the minds of liberals regarding Islam. On the one hand liberals traditionally stand up for the oppressed minority, and Muslims have gotten their fair share of discrimination in the West. But on the other hand, if you look at many of the values coming out of the Islamic world, they fly in the face of many of the most cherished values your average liberal supports. Things like gender equality, equal rights for gay people, freedom of expression, freedom of speech and so forth are opposed by a disturbingly large percentage of the Islamic world. And so what's happening is that liberals find themselves defending a group of people who if they had the power, would never allow any of the things most liberals stand for.

Dinesh's assessment of the situation is spot on.

I have a confession to make. I'm a liberal. And as a liberal, I can certainly see the difficultly that dealing with Islam causes. I was once tolerant of religion, although I never thought highly of it. Perhaps it's better to say I was indifferent towards religion. But when I started doing research into religion, I became more aware of its harm, and I became convinced with the help of some of the New Atheists that it should be opposed.

Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...